Are training materials just reformatted documentation sections? I’ve been told at times “just copy the documentation” for training materials. Other times, coworkers express surprise that I am NOT doing that. Recently at a client site, I was told that the training materials should match the documentation “exactly”. They want the same examples and sample app. Benefit cited was the ability to cut an example out of the documentation and paste it in to the app during class labs (therefore eliminating much of the work in building a lab – and the learning).
This is a big topic which will likely be broken into multiple posts. I’ll start with using the same examples in docs and training.
Cutting an pasting from docs to build training materials
This is done – and needs to happen – when the text is about terminology and product description. Documentation is usually started earlier in a project than training. This means terminology, product benefits, feature benefits and role definitions are already worked out and approved by product management. So why not use these sentences? Consistency in terminology is important to the learning process.
Same examples used in both? I will confess to occasionally doing this when pressed with a deadline and education readiness is part of the decision to release a new product version. However, having docs and education the same is not a good idea because customers will know this was done and will be disappointed. For example, one customer review said something like: I paid $1000 for this course and it’s the same as the docs – what a ripoff! It seemed this customer had read the docs and wanted more. Most of us will agree that more examples are a good thing. Showing the product can handle multiple applications is a good thing. Keeping customers from getting annoyed and bored is a good thing.
Using the same customer application example
Setting up a sample sandbox with loaded data is complicated with some products. In classes, customers might be using this sandbox or a clone. This can be a big win for education if someone else has set up the lab systems. However, if the sandbox environment is too complicated (as is the case with many demo systems), it will impede learning. The labs have to be simple enough to be understood quickly so that time is not wasted trying to figure or the design and logic of the lab environment. But it can’t be so simple that the class attendees think the software can’t handle complex applications – such as theirs. And you don’t want the lab sessions to devolve into discussions about why the samples are not real-world. (I have had this happen with security examples).
Using the same system for demos, doc examples and education can leave the education department vulnerable to changes in the environment that break labs. And if this is discovered during a class, customers will be unhappy. Docs and education are often on different release schedules and demos can be changed at anytime. In a small company with good communication between departments, this might not be much of a problem. In larger companies or companies with departmental silos, training may not know about the changes until customers discover it.
For these reasons, I believe it is better to have the education build and manage their own lab environment.
